Jharkhand High Court
Dr. Manoranjan Biswas vs Mecon Limited on 7 October, 2025
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
2025:JHHC:31194
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
WP(S) No.494 of 2022
-----
Dr. Manoranjan Biswas, Executive Director (IR and Safety),
MECON Limited, son of Nibaran Chandra Biswas, resident of
Quarter No. E-11, MECON Colony, PO Doranda, PS Doranda,
District Ranchi
... Petitioner(s).
Versus
1.MECON Limited, a Government of India Enterprises through its
Chief Vigilance Officer (CVO), having its office at Vivekanand
Path, PO and PS Doranda, District Ranchi
2.Senior General Manager (Vigilance), MECON Limited, having
its office at Vivekanand Path, PO Doranda, PS Doranda, District
Ranchi ... Respondent(s).
CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
------
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Ankit Vishal, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate Mr. Amitabh, Advocate .........
10 /07.10.2025: Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Chief Vigilance Officer, MECON.
2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition as he is aggrieved by the act of the respondent-Chief Vigilance Officer whereby the name of the petitioner has been kept in the "Agreed List" and list of "Officers of Doubtful Integrity".
3. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel submits that keeping the name of the petitioner in the aforesaid list is detrimental to his interest and is a stigma. As per him it will have negative future implications. He also submits that his name was included in the said list without following the due procedures.
4. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel submits that keeping a name in the list of "Officers of Doubtful Integrity" is only for internal purpose to keep a watch on such officers. The same does not have any effect on the service career of an employee nor have 1 2025:JHHC:31194 any negative effect in future. He refers to paragraph 5 of the affidavit filed by his client.
5. After hearing the parties, I find that it is admitted that the name of the petitioner was kept in the "Agreed List" and list of "Officers of Doubtful Integrity". In paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit dated 03.11.2022, it has been specifically mentioned that this is an internal document which is secret and confidential, for preventive measures to keep the conduct of some of the officer under watch. It has further mentioned that inclusion of the name of any of the officer in the said list in no manner affects the career prospects of the said officer. It has also been mentioned in paragraph 8 that any officer whose name is kept in the aforesaid list cannot feel aggrieved as the same in no manner will affect any of the right of such officer. It is necessary to quote paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent no. 2-Senior General Manager (Vigilance):
"7.That it is stated that the inclusion of name in the Agreed list or in the list of Officers of Doubtful Integrity is only for the purpose of keeping a watch upon such employees and does not in any manner affect the service career of such employees. It is an internal document which is secret & confidential document for preventive measures so that the conduct of such officer whose names is included in the list is watched carefully. The inclusion of the name of any officer in no manner would affect the career prospect of the officer. The relevant portion of the Vigilance Manual by way of Annexure 15 of the writ petition and Annexure- 11/1 of the writ petition (MHA OM No. 105/1/66-AVD-I dated 28.10.1969) provide that the categories of officers who are to be included in the list of officers of Doubtful Integrity includes such officers who have been departmentally awarded a major penalty on charge of lack of integrity or on charge of gross dereliction of duty."
6. Thus from the affidavit it is quite clear that the petitioner cannot be felt aggrieved if his name was kept in the said lists. The same also cannot be said to be stigmatic. This mechanism is only for the purpose of some internal monitoring purpose. Further the petitioner has already superannuated and his punishment order has already been quashed in WP(S) No. 1813 of 2021. Thus, the 2 2025:JHHC:31194 petitioner should not feel aggrieved by the action of the respondents nor the same will have any adverse effect in future.
7. Thus, this writ petition stands disposed of.
(ANANDA SEN, J.) 07.10.2025 Tanuj/CP-2 3